Case LawHigh Court › Wp/34502/2012 Of Sai Maruthi Constructio...

Wp/34502/2012 Of Sai Maruthi Constructions v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii

High Court 03 Jan 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/34502/2012 Of Sai Maruthi Constructions v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii
Date of order
03 Jan 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp/34502/2012 Of Sai Maruthi Constructions v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, the High Court (2013) decided the matter.

Decision: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at theadmission stage after hearing Sri Challa Gunaranjan,the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ________________________ M.S.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO W.P.No34502 of 2012 Sai Maruti Constructions V The Commissioner of IT and others THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO W.P.No.34502 of 2012 Oral Order : ( Per Sri GR, J ) An order of attachment of property of the petitionerpassed by the 3[rd] respondent, in purported exercise ofpowers under Section 281-B of the Income Tax Act,1961 ( for short “the Act”), is assailed in this writ petition. The order records that since there is likelihood ofsubstantial demand arising on completion of pendingassessment, for protection of the interest of theRevenue it is considered necessary to attach theproperty of the assessee. Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel appearingfor the respondents-Revenue states that the reasonsrecorded for exercising the power of attachment per sedo not fulfil the normative requirements of Section 281-Bof the Act, and in the circumstances, the respondents begranted liberty to revoke the impugned order ofattachment while preserving appropriate authority’spower and jurisdiction to reconsider invocation of powers under Section 281-B of the Act, but inaccordance with law. In view of the submission fairly made on behalf ofthe respondents-Revenue, we direct the respondents particularly 3[rd] respondent to rescind the impugnedorder dated 22.10.2012, with liberty to reconsiderexercise of power and jurisdiction under Section 281-Bof the Income Tax Act, 1961, in accordance with law, ifso advised. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at theadmission stage after hearing Sri Challa Gunaranjan,the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J Kk/Date :3-1-13 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO W.P.No.34502 of 2012 Dated 3-1-13
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan